Canadian Immigration

[Argus]

I think that Canada immigration is based on a point system. Education for example takes 10 points, certain skills (like car mechanics or tradesmen which there is a shortage in Canada then another 10 points. Prospective immigrants have to to score a certain points in order for their application to be even considered (say 40 out of maximum 60 for example). Then HOW could uneducated, unskilled workers get in as you appear to say????

This is a government report. More to the point it is a report done by Canadian Immigration. It's not "mine".

As to how they get in, the majority of immigrants who come here come under the family reunification program. No points system is used for that.

Those who come in and get points for being highly educated often can't find work because they don't speak English very well, or their so-called university degree isn't worth much since it's from an unrecognized university. Not every university in the world is equal. Some are pretty poor at educating people. I remember seeing a report years back that said most Russian doctors wouldn't qualify to be nurses in Canada because they had so little familiarity and expertise with modern medical technology. Also in some countries cheating and bribery are endemic. People have been known to come here with a degree and turn out to know little or nothing about their supposed area of expertise.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

I think Argus was referring to immigrants not refugees. I think that more than two-third of the 300,000 newcomers per year are immigrants who have PASSED the point system

It's actually half, the other half being family reunification and refugees. Refugees BECOME immigrants, after all.

The Liberals have promised to DECREASE the number of economic immigrants and increase both family reunification and refugees, as well as increasing the acceptance of elderly immigrants.

No economic justification for these moves has been offered nor is it possible to make one.

[Argus]

What I am saying is that the picture (and yes I get the picture you presenting) you and Argus are presenting is not the true picture of immigrants. The majority are educated or have skills (again I am referring to immigrants not refugees) who had to pass the exiting point system which is based on education and skills. So it can't be true that Chinese peasants and illiterate middle eastern can pass the system and settle in Canada and stay on welfare forever. Explain this please.

So the multiple reports I have posted, some of them by the government itself, are all wrong. And you believe you are right because.... because.... I'm confused here. Your information comes from where?

[Argus]

Yes the climate and resources were much richer in those two countries than rest of Africa, That was likely why the white exploiters chose those two countries over Sudan or Somalia. Now one may ask why it were the whites who traveled all the way to Africa to colonize the two countries in Africa and not blacks moving to Europe and colonizing the whites?

The reason those countries were better off is because the governments were organized and relatively corruption free. The governments were democracies, at least for the whites, and operated to make life better for their constituents (whites mostly). This meant paving roads, building bridges, building railroads, establishing hospitals and the like.

Africa's sorry mess is not due to skin colour but incredibly bad, corrupt, incompetent government from top to bottom. Government by people who don't know what they're doing and whose main reason for existing is to steal as much money for themselves and their friends as possible. This has become the culture in Africa among the elites.

Whatever country you care to name in Africa, you’ll find that the public interest – the idea of working for the collective wellbeing, doing something because it is good for people and for country – has become an alien concept.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/adam-the-death-of-the-common-good-in-africa

Edited August 29, 2016 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

This is a government report. More to the point it is a report done by Canadian Immigration. It's not "mine".

As to how they get in, the majority of immigrants who come here come under the family reunification program. No points system is used for that.

Those who come in and get points for being highly educated often can't find work because they don't speak English very well, or their so-called university degree isn't worth much since it's from an unrecognized university. Not every university in the world is equal. Some are pretty poor at educating people. I remember seeing a report years back that said most Russian doctors wouldn't qualify to be nurses in Canada because they had so little familiarity and expertise with modern medical technology. Also in some countries cheating and bribery are endemic. People have been known to come here with a degree and turn out to know little or nothing about their supposed area of expertise.

Of course I wasn't referring to family class. Families like parents and children are sponsored by the citizen which means they won't go on welfare in case they can't find jobs and will be supported by the family member who sponsored them (as they have to sign a guarantee form of some kind).

As for the others coming by point system I would have guessed that the system in place is more solid than what you described. For example I would have expected that the university where a degree is acquired also will be taken into consideration when receiving points. On your other point I don't think anyone not speaking one of the two official languages can be admitted as immigrant (unless they come as family class or refugee). I remember that speaking the official language has an independent point of its own (like education or skill having 10 points).

[CITIZEN_2015]

From what you are responding to my posts if true then again what I have been saying (SELECTIVITY) needs to be tighten up (selection based on education, skills, cultural adaptability, language fluency, age), rather than a selection of immigrants based on skin color as proposed by taxme. Our point system needs to be re-visited. Also I think liberals increased family classification and refugees over economic immigrants for humanitarian reasons not economic reasons so no wonder it doesn't make economic sense but they were elected by the nation with this mandate after all even though I may not agree with this policy I still voted for them for all other reasons (like being fed up with the corrupt scandalist right wing policies of former regime).

Edited August 29, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

Of course I wasn't referring to family class. Families like parents and children are sponsored by the citizen which means they won't go on welfare in case they can't find jobs and will be supported by the family member who sponsored them (as they have to sign a guarantee form of some kind).

First, the agreement is to sponsor them for only three years. After that, they're Canada's problem if they can't make it. If after three years they are working in McDonalds, that's not an issue - except, of course, they're going to be very poor. Further, if the sponsor decides not to pay for things there's very little which is done. The government can sue the sponsor to recover welfare costs but almost never does.

As for the others coming by point system I would have guessed that the system in place is more solid than what you described. For example I would have expected that the university where a degree is acquired also will be taken into consideration when receiving points.

It's not. How is the government supposed to check out every third world university? Do you have any idea how many colleges and universities there are in China and India alone? Many, many hundreds. And how is the government to know if the student cheated or bribed to get his or her degree? India and China are extremely corrupt countries where bribery is normal. Don't believe me? Google it.

On your other point I don't think anyone not speaking one of the two official languages can be admitted as immigrant (unless they come as family class or refugee). I remember that speaking the official language has an independent point of its own (like education or skill having 10 points).

You don't need to speak English to come here. You do need to pass a language test to gain citizenship. But remember, the language skills which will pass the test are not intense. For example, basic knowledge of English will be fine if you're driving a taxi or working as a store clerk or other fairly simple job. But if you have a university degree you want to work in something much more complicated, something which requires a very high level of communications skills, not accent free, but extremely precise, not only in spoken English but also written. This is why even though the Conservatives changed the rules to let in more people with degrees their economic performance actually went down not up.

We would be better off bringing in tradesmen. Their language skills aren't nearly as important and there is lots of work for them. Unfortunately, we don't get a lot of tradesmen coming in from China or Pakistan. We could get them from Italy and Portugal, of course, but we don't.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

taxme, there are many good people highly educated, skillful, hard working individuals in the third world many in middle east having to live under oppressive self imposed regimes. Many females who are feminists and seeking freedom from the oppressive society or government they are born under without choice or family they live under. They would become great hard working citizens. Are you going to deny them the freedom (and all their positive contributions to this country over decades) and opportunity for a life simply because their skin may not be white or even if skin wise white they may not be Caucasian?? YES or NO? I like to know Argus's response to this post too.

[Argus]

taxme, there are many good people highly educated, skillful, hard working individuals in the third world many in middle east having to live under oppressive self imposed regimes. Many females who are feminists and seeking freedom from the oppressive society or government they are born under without choice or family they live under. They would become great hard working citizens. Are you going to deny them the freedom (and all their positive contributions to this country over decades) and opportunity for a life simply because their skin may not be white or even if skin wise white they may not be Caucasian?? YES or NO? I like to know Argus's response to this post too.

Canada's immigration system is not a world welfare program. It has only one purpose (aside from refugees), and that is to benefit Canada as much as possible. The government itself has determined that immigrants from Italy, Ireland and The United Kingdom, Germany, and the Philippines, among others, perform much better here in Canada than immigrants from Pakistan, China and the middle east. Since virtually the entire justification for the immigration program is to help Canada's economy then it seems pretty clear to me we should be focusing on those countries and regions which the government's own studies have shown produce more economically successful immigrants.

Of course, the cultural aspects goes on top of this. And in this case it seems the immigrants who perform the best in terms of getting well-paid jobs, are also from countries which do not have cultures which are very, very different from ours. We don't have to worry about rigid religious believers who despise women if they come from Europe, like we do about the ones that come from the Middle East. And we know from past history that people from European countries quickly adapt and assimilate into Canada, whereas religious fundamentalists like the ultra-orthodox Jews and Muslims often do not.

For both reasons I would try to focus as much of our immigration on Europe as possible and focus as little on the middle east, Pakistan, China and South Korea as possible.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

Canada's immigration system is not a world welfare program. It has only one purpose (aside from refugees), and that is to benefit Canada as much as possible. The government itself has determined that immigrants from Italy, Ireland and The United Kingdom, Germany, and the Philippines, among others, perform much better here in Canada than immigrants from Pakistan, China and the middle east. Since virtually the entire justification for the immigration program is to help Canada's economy then it seems pretty clear to me we should be focusing on those countries and regions which the government's own studies have shown produce more economically successful immigrants.

Of course, the cultural aspects goes on top of this. And in this case it seems the immigrants who perform the best in terms of getting well-paid jobs, are also from countries which do not have cultures which are very, very different from ours. We don't have to worry about rigid religious believers who despise women if they come from Europe, like we do about the ones that come from the Middle East. And we know from past history that people from European countries quickly adapt and assimilate into Canada, whereas religious fundamentalists like the ultra-orthodox Jews and Muslims often do not.

For both reasons I would try to focus as much of our immigration on Europe as possible and focus as little on the middle east, Pakistan, China and South Korea as possible.

My post was precisely focusing on those in middle east who are suffering from the imposed culture. I cited feminists under a religious dictatorship who are highly educated, or skillful or both with modern westernized culture (and yes there are many in middle east) but may be not Caucasian as per strict definition of a Caucasian. Would you allow them in or would you deny them because their skin may not be as white as Northern Europeans. Would you select one with higher education and skills because she was born in Europe and deny the other of equal education and skill (trapped under oppressive government or society) because she was not born in Europe??? (like it was her choice where she was born!!!!!!). The regional selection (selection based on where they live) that I think you have promoted in the past indicates that you wish immigrants from Europe only and wish to ban immigrants from everywhere else especially middle east REGARDLESS of Circumstances. YES or NO?

Edited August 29, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[-TSS-]

The United States and Britain are without doubt the most wanted destinations for immigration followed by Canada and Australia.

Therefore you have no problem about the quality of the immigrants, if that is even appropriate to say, as many highly skilled ones are certainly heading your way.

It's a totally different situation here in Europe. European countries get the ones who are not wanted anywhere else.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I feel that there are a few here that the only quality they are after is the "White" skin color.

[Argus]

My post was precisely focusing on those in middle east who are suffering from the imposed culture. I cited feminists under a religious dictatorship who are highly educated, or skillful or both with modern westernized culture (and yes there are many in middle east) but may be not Caucasian as per strict definition of a Caucasian. Would you allow them in or would you deny them because their skin may not be as white as Northern Europeans.

Do you know how to select for the right traits in the middle east which will reliably produce economically successful immigrants? Because Canada's immigration department clearly does not. Nor do I. What we do know is that immigrants from that region are, statistically poor economic producers compared to immigrants from Europe. This is from the government's own study.

And again, you are making an assumption that our immigration system is there as some kind of charitable foundation to improve the lives of people now living in other countries. It's not. Furthermore, it doesn't seem like the majority of immigrants from that region are particularly interested in throwing off the yoke of Islamic misogyny. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many hijabs and burkas.

[Argus]

I feel that there are a few here that the only quality they are after is the "White" skin color.

I feel there are a few here incapable of understanding basic numbers and instead prefer to call people names.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Do you know how to select for the right traits in the middle east which will reliably produce economically successful immigrants? Because Canada's immigration department clearly does not. Nor do I. What we do know is that immigrants from that region are, statistically poor economic producers compared to immigrants from Europe. This is from the government's own study.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem like the majority of immigrants from that region are particularly interested in throwing off the yoke of Islamic misogyny. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many hijabs and burkas.

That is why protective immigrants are being interviewed to find out exactly that. May be we have to re-trained our officers.

That is because you see them all over the place but you do NOT realize they are from middle east. You only noticed the ones making themselves visible by wearing hejab. I have met Moroccans, Turkish, Lebanese Arabs, Persians, Kurdish, Palestinians Arabs ladies who look exactly like Canadian born or Europeans in looks with a tonne of makeup drinking and dancing or shopping, with skin color or modernity and culture as latin European ladies. I only realized where they are from AFTER I got to know them (some even without accent). You see them and you assume they are from Europe, Expand your horizon Argus.

I think your response was clear enough that you will indeed deprive certain people simply because they are not born in Europe even if they have better education and skill sets to be better contributors to Canada's future than their European competitors. Thank you for clarification of your position.

Edited August 29, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

I feel there are a few here incapable of understanding basic numbers and instead prefer to call people names.

My posts are still up there. I never called you or anyone names. I just asked you a question!!! Maybe it was your own sub-conscious that made you feel that way?

[-TSS-]

Canada is a country based on a robbed land in the first place. Therefore calling in more people worldwide quite aggravates the initial robbery.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada is a country based on a robbed land in the first place. Therefore calling in more people worldwide quite aggravates the initial robbery.

True...which leads to the laughing "aboriginal" comment that the white colonizers are now getting their just reward through unwanted immigration.

[TimG]

Canada is a country based on a robbed land in the first place.

All countries are collections of territory that was "robbed" from the initial inhabitants (the word 'anglo-saxon' records a robbery that took place 1000 years ago). The only difference is the British set up a legal framework for the transfer of lands to reduce bloodshed. Edited August 29, 2016 by TimG

[CITIZEN_2015]

Canada is a country based on a robbed land in the first place. Therefore calling in more people worldwide quite aggravates the initial robbery.

At least unlike the US settlers they didn't almost wipe out the native population.

[-TSS-]

At least unlike the US settlers they didn't almost wipe out the native population.

I'm not Canadian, I'm Finnish, therefore I can say "they" about Canadians.

Aren't you Canadian yourself either?

[CITIZEN_2015]

I'm not Canadian, I'm Finnish, therefore I can say "they" about Canadians.

Aren't you Canadian yourself either?

Yes I am though not by birth and mighty proud of it too. That said I wasn't around when settlers (mainly from France and British isles) came to Canada so to me it is they as I wasn't one of them neither were my ancestors.

Unlike Europe (Finland in particular) Canada is the land of diversity. If you visit a Canadian city you visit the whole world because you will likely see all kind of faces ranging from pale white Northern Europeans to darker French and Latin Europeans and Latin Americans to Native Indians and Orientals to colored East Indians and west asians and colored/white Middle Eastern and dark Africans are there together with their restaurants and foods and bars and cultures living in peace and harmony and most in prosperity. CANADA is THE WHOLE WORLD thanks to it immigration policy and the tolerance and welcoming attitude of most of its population towards newcomers.

Edited August 29, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[-TSS-]

Yes I am though not by birth and mighty proud of it too. That said I wasn't around when settlers (mainly from France and British isles) came to Canada so to me it is they as I wasn't one of them neither were my ancestors.

Unlike Europe (Finland in particular) Canada is the land of diversity. If you visit a Canadian city you visit the whole world because all kind of faces you will see ranging from pale white Northern Europeans to darker French and Latin Europeans and Latin Americans to Native Indians and Orientals to colored East Indians and west asians and colored/white Middle Eastern and dark Africans are there together with their restaurants and foods and bars and cultures living in peace and most in prosperity. CANADA is THE WHOLE WORLD.

Fair enough.

[Argus]

That is why protective immigrants are being interviewed to find out exactly that. May be we have to re-trained our officers.

You don't think they've been trying to do that for the last twenty years?

I think your response was clear enough that you will indeed deprive certain people simply because they are not born in Europe even if they have better education and skill sets to be better contributors to Canada's future than their European competitors. Thank you for clarification of your position.

And you've made it clear that to you, the well-being of Canada is irrelevant compared to what you see as Canada's duty to provide a better life to foreign citizens of third world countries. Our immigration system is not there to benefit Canada but to make you feel good about what a swell bunch of people we are to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who will wind up scrubbing floors and driving taxis.

[Argus]

Unlike Europe (Finland in particular) Canada is the land of diversity. If you visit a Canadian city you visit the whole world because you will likely see all kind of faces ranging from pale white Northern Europeans to darker French and Latin Europeans and Latin Americans to Native Indians and Orientals to colored East Indians and west asians and colored/white Middle Eastern and dark Africans are there together with their restaurants and foods and bars and cultures living in peace and harmony and most in prosperity. CANADA is THE WHOLE WORLD thanks to it immigration policy and the tolerance and welcoming attitude of most of its population towards newcomers.

How noble. Maybe if you were born here you'd care more about preserving the culture and values and identity of Canada instead of burying them in a mass of millions of foreign immigrants.